memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Past Tense, Part II (episode)
pna I added pna-cite because it states that the episode was voted one of the best episodes of all time, and while I can believe this is true, it should at least state who conducted the poll. Weyoun 18:15, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC) * It might just be easier to re/move the reference to this page and ask that question rather than to add a potentially misleading template to the page. That is pretty common practice when questionable references pop-up. --Alan del Beccio 19:07, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC) Link to Lee's I added a quote but being new couldn't figure out how to link it to the right name, right now it goes to a disambiguation page and I figure thats better than nothing.– 00:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC) More Nitpicks? I know I've only been here since early Decemeber, so I'm relatively new at this, but as far as I understand it, these two new entries are nitpicks and don't have any place here: 1. "The Reo army trucks seen in this episode date from the Vietnam era. They are already being phased out and have been mostly replaced by Humvees by 2008. In fact, MRAPs are now replacing the Humvees and should have been the only wheeled military vehicles around by 2024. The fact that the producers chose the antiquated army trucks and did not utilize their imaginations to create a futuristic army vehicle is a sign of a rather low budget." 2. "The Volkswagen Bus that Kira and O'Brien see when they show up in 1967 is parked the wrong way. On the right side of the street, we should have seen the front of the bus." :The second one certainly doesn't seem to have any place. Maybe the first one could be modified to legitimately include it, but the last sentence needs serious editing. That's just my opinion anyway, but as I say, I am pretty new, so I might be off base – Bertaut talk 22:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC) ::Bylaw records could verify this, but what if it was a one-way street during the 1960s? GCapp1959 08:44, May 26, 2010 (UTC) :::People sometimes park on the wrong side/the wrong way. Derekbd 20:37, February 28, 2011 (UTC) Uncredited guests There's an obvious missing person from the list. The man standing with Detective Preston when the governor orders her to use force. He is seen saying something indistict, then Preston tells him they go in at 0500. This person is not yet acknowledged in the episode summary as a person who is not credited. GCapp1959 08:43, May 26, 2010 (UTC) Removed I removed, *Speaking of his trip to the alternate 2048, O'Brien says "Earth history had its rough patches, but never that rough." Assuming he is familiar with World War III, whatever O'Brien saw in the alternate 2048 must have been worse. What could possibly have been worse than World War III? for being a nitpick, speculation, and opinion. -Angry Future Romulan 14:25, September 15, 2010 (UTC) Timing "Coincidence" Added the following, *("Part I" was the first Trek production to air after the Republican takeover of the U.S. Congress for the first time in 40 years) You can't seriously tell me that a two-parter which more or less amounts to an alarmist liberal fable (co-written by the Executive Producer, who doesn't even pretend otherwise), just happened to air 5 and 12 days after what was then (and arguably still is) the greatest triumph in the history of American conservatism.--Ten-pint 21:38, October 14, 2010 (UTC) :Find a source that the producers were intending to refer to this. We don't list every event that may have affected an episode's plot. A lot of Star Trek episodes could be considered "an alarmist liberal fable". :In any case, episodes aren't conceived of, written, and shot in 5 days. The idea for "Past Tense" would have existed weeks before that happened.– Cleanse ( talk | ) 23:38, October 14, 2010 (UTC) ::Of course not. But the eight weeks between the midterm elections and start of the congressional term (both on days etched in stone by the US Constitution) certainly is, and the Repuglican intentions had been clear long before that - and it would be a much more believable coincidence if ISB didn't practically take the "soapbox" accusations as a compliment. That being said, while I absolutely believe it and think it's worth mentioning, if we can't call Marla McGivers Khan's wife, I should've posted better proof than considering it obvious.--Ten-pint 00:32, October 15, 2010 (UTC) Music Replaced Looks like the Netflix edition of this episode has replaced "Hey Joe" with (awful) generic rock music. Maybe this is why DS9's release got held up? Any rate, not sure if this is notable enough to list on the main page.--Geiger 02:00, October 28, 2011 (UTC) :Differences in releases are notable, as Background info. We sure it's just the Netflix one? --31dot 02:29, October 28, 2011 (UTC) Alfre Woodard Does Alfre Woodard, better known for her role in First Contact, have a cameo in this episode as one of the hostages in the police station? Certainly appears so to me. 02:55, August 8, 2012 (UTC) :This character is not played by Alfre Woodard, it is played by Tina Lifford. 31dot (talk) 09:34, August 8, 2012 (UTC) Starfleet Historical Records: Goof not listed: It seems that no one has noticed that starfleet's historical records depicting sisko's face as that of gabriel bell shows him wearing the street clothes sisco had earlier traded for in exchange for access to a building's rooftop. This should be listed as a "goof" because when sisko and julian's photos were taken at the processing facility they were still wearing starfleet uniforms. This was the only time in the time period that a photo was taken of them. At the end of the episode when julian showed sisko a padd containing the record, it clearly shows him wearing the street clothes he had not yet traded for at the time the photo was taken. Additionally,as a nitpick: Vin - the guy that promised to tell people the truth about what happened, was supposed to place siskos ID card on one of the dead bodies so that he could let the two of them free and let people think they died. ---If sisko gave Vin Bell's ID card then it would have been the real Bell's name and face in the historical record. ---If sisko gave vin his own id card then it would have been sisko's name and photo on the historical record. The only way the record AS SHOWN in the episode could have worked is if vin altered the id cards to show siskos face on bell's id card file.Mark2112 (talk) 17:23, February 9, 2015 (UTC) :Please review the nitpick policy; we generally don't note "goofs" or other plot issues unless there is something that can be cited(such as a Trek staff member talking about it, a passage in a reference book, etc.). 31dot (talk) 19:04, February 9, 2015 (UTC) Yea thats why I offered the info on the discuss page rather than on the actual episode page.Mark2112 (talk) 23:09, February 11, 2015 (UTC) :Thanks, but Talk pages are not for cataloging content that isn't being put in the article. 31dot (talk) 23:11, February 11, 2015 (UTC) Why is there no "Comments" function on the bottom of each page like most other sites on wiki? I know there is a generic 10 forward section on here but really: comments about specific episodes should really be able to appear on the pages they pertain to. This paticular wiki site doesnt make anyone feel very welcome to participate and thats such a shame. Since my input is totally unwelcome please just delete my entire starfleet historical records entry in its entirety once youve read this and I'll go find another fact site to use as I watch reruns where the public is more welcome. Im sorry Ive inflicted my participation on you and created an inconvinience her :Responded on your talk page. 31dot (talk) 15:04, February 13, 2015 (UTC)